- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 16:14:24 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "dglazkov@google.com" <dglazkov@google.com>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> There's no implied commitment here, just the reality that whatever >> syntax we choose here is likely to freeze quickly as soon as it's >> shipped. >> >> Even if we want to, it will be hard or impossible to change >> in the future. > > That sounds a bit like pre-emptive fait accompli :). Shouldn't a large amount of content depend on this for things to be hard to change? It may be that Google plans to produce such content; or maybe you expects apps in your app store to quickly develop a lot of dependencies on this through libraries or what not? If so, I still think that's your responsibility. (And yes, it's risky) I just expect the web to adopt this stuff pretty quickly, and make changing it very difficult in a short amount of time. >> Lots of Shadow DOM can be tweaked post-shipping, and likely will for >> some time as we continue to tweak things based on experience in the >> wild and further input from others. CSS syntax probably can't, >> because that's how the world works. > > This thread suggests there is more to it than syntax. (And for the record I'm fine with ^ and ^^, fwiw; more worried about whether/how component authors can choose what ^^ can see). Nope, it's just syntax. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 00:15:11 UTC